Claude-Code-Game-Studios/CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/team/team-ui.md

Skill Test Spec: /team-ui

Skill Summary

Orchestrates the UI team through the full UX pipeline for a single UI feature. Coordinates ux-designer, ui-programmer, art-director, the engine UI specialist, and accessibility-specialist through five structured phases: Context Gathering + UX Spec (Phase 1a/1b) → UX Review Gate (Phase 1c) → Visual Design (Phase 2) → Implementation (Phase 3) → Review in parallel (Phase 4) → Polish (Phase 5). Phase 0 resolves review_mode, automation and team.size and the skill announces the active set before any spawn — the default individual spawns ui-programmer + ux-designer, small adds accessibility-specialist + art-director, studio adds the engine UI specialist and an adversarial Phase 4 review. Phase 1a reports each of its five inputs as present or ABSENT, and a missing design/accessibility-requirements.md is carried forward as Accessibility: NOT ASSESSED. Uses AskUserQuestion at each phase transition. Delegates all file writes to sub-agents and sub-skills (/ux-design, ui-programmer). Produces a summary report with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and handoffs to /ux-review, /code-review, /team-polish.

---

Static Assertions (Structural)

• Has required frontmatter fields: name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools
• Has ≥2 phase headings (Phase 1a through Phase 5 are all present)
• Contains verdict keywords: COMPLETE, BLOCKED
• File Write Protocol: sub-agents write under the bounded exception (named path, new artifact under production/, docs/ or tests/, gated phase) and ask outside it; sub-skills (/ux-design) ask before writing; the orchestrator does not write files directly; implementation files (code, shaders, audio, assets) are outside it — each agent lists the files it will create or change, and the skill asks once for the set before any is written
• Names a destination per agent under production/ui/[feature-name]/: visual-design.md (art-director, Phase 2), engine-notes.md (engine UI specialist), review-[agent].md (each Phase 4 reviewer, one file each)
• Defines a phase gate as a decision point the pipeline itself lists, whatever the automation mode, and claims no director spawn at phase gates
• Has a next-step handoff at the end (references /ux-review, /code-review, /team-polish)
• Error Recovery Protocol section is present: verify a named artifact is on disk, surface BLOCKED immediately, always produce a partial report, full procedure (surface → assess → options → partial report) in .claude/docs/error-recovery-protocol.md
• Uses AskUserQuestion at phase transitions for user approval before proceeding (collaborative mode)
• Phase 0 resolves team.size, and the skill requires a one-line active-set announcement before any spawn
• Phase 4 is explicitly marked as parallel (ux-designer, art-director, accessibility-specialist)
• UX Review Gate (Phase 1c) is defined as a blocking gate — skill must not proceed to Phase 2 without APPROVED verdict, except by an explicit user override of NEEDS REVISION or NOT ASSESSED, which the final report records
• Team Composition lists all five roles (ux-designer, ui-programmer, art-director, engine UI specialist, accessibility-specialist)
• Engine UI specialist is read from specialists.ui in project.yaml (falling back to .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md), and specialists.ui: null is treated as unset
• References the interaction pattern library (design/ux/interaction-patterns.md) — ui-programmer must use existing patterns
• Phase 1a reads design/accessibility-requirements.md before design begins

---

Test Cases

Case 1: Happy Path — Full pipeline from UX spec through polish succeeds

Fixture:

• Resolved config block: review_mode: full, team.size: studio, automation: collaborative
• design/gdd/game-concept.md exists with platform targets and intended audience
• design/player-journey.md exists
• design/ux/interaction-patterns.md exists with relevant patterns
• design/accessibility-requirements.md exists with committed tier (e.g., Standard)
• engine.name in project.yaml is Godot and specialists.ui is godot-specialist

Input: /team-ui inventory screen

Expected behavior:

1. Before any spawn, one line announces the active set for team.size: studio
2. Phase 1a — orchestrator reads game-concept.md, player-journey.md, relevant GDD UI sections, interaction-patterns.md, accessibility-requirements.md; reports each input as present or ABSENT; summarizes a brief for the ux-designer
3. Phase 1b — /ux-design inventory-screen invoked (or ux-designer spawned directly); produces design/ux/inventory-screen.md using ux-spec.md template; AskUserQuestion confirms spec before review
4. Phase 1c — /ux-review design/ux/inventory-screen.md invoked; returns APPROVED; gate passed, proceed to Phase 2
5. Phase 2 — art-director spawned; reviews full UX spec (not only wireframes); applies visual treatment; verifies color contrast; produces visual design spec with asset manifest; AskUserQuestion confirms before Phase 3
6. Phase 3 — godot-specialist (from specialists.ui) spawned first; produces implementation notes for ui-programmer; ui-programmer spawned with UX spec + visual spec + engine notes; implementation produced; interaction-patterns.md updated if new patterns introduced
7. Phase 4 — ux-designer, art-director, accessibility-specialist spawned in parallel, each told to find where the implementation fails its spec rather than confirm it matches (the studio adversarial pass); all three return results before Phase 5
8. Phase 5 — review feedback addressed; animations verified skippable; UI sounds confirmed through audio event system; interaction-patterns.md final check
9. Summary report: UX spec status, UX review verdict, visual design status, implementation status, accessibility compliance, input method support, pattern library status; verdict: COMPLETE

Assertions:

• Active-set line naming team.size: studio appears before the first agent is spawned
• Phase 1a reads all five sources and lists each as present or ABSENT before briefing ux-designer
• UX Review Gate checked before Phase 2 — Phase 2 does NOT begin until APPROVED
• Art-director in Phase 2 reviews full spec, not just wireframe images
• Engine UI specialist is taken from specialists.ui and spawned before ui-programmer in Phase 3
• ui-programmer lists the files it will create or change, and writes none before the one ask for that set is answered yes
• Phase 4 agents launched simultaneously (ux-designer, art-director, accessibility-specialist)
• At team.size: studio, Phase 4's prompts are adversarial and the summary report says the adversarial pass ran
• All file writes delegated to sub-agents and sub-skills
• Verdict COMPLETE in final summary report
• Next steps include /ux-review, /code-review, /team-polish

---

Case 2: UX Review Gate — Spec fails review; skill halts before implementation

Fixture:

• Resolved config block: automation: collaborative (any team.size — ux-designer is active at every size)
• design/ux/inventory-screen.md produced by Phase 1b
• /ux-review returns verdict NEEDS REVISION with specific concerns flagged (e.g., gamepad navigation flow incomplete, contrast ratio below minimum)

Input: /team-ui inventory screen

Expected behavior:

1. Phase 1a + 1b complete — UX spec produced
2. Phase 1c — /ux-review design/ux/inventory-screen.md returns NEEDS REVISION
3. Skill does NOT advance to Phase 2
4. AskUserQuestion presented with the specific flagged concerns and options:
   • (a) Return to ux-designer to address the issues and re-review
   • (b) Accept the risk and proceed to Phase 2 anyway (conscious decision)
5. If user chooses (a): ux-designer revises spec, /ux-review re-run; loop continues until APPROVED or user overrides
6. If user chooses (b): skill proceeds with an explicit NEEDS REVISION note in the final report
7. Skill does NOT silently proceed past the gate

Assertions:

• Phase 2 does NOT begin while UX review verdict is NEEDS REVISION
• AskUserQuestion presents the specific flagged concerns before offering options
• User must make a conscious choice to override — skill does not assume override
• If user accepts risk, the final report records the override: the NEEDS REVISION verdict, the concerns left open, and that the user chose to proceed
• Revision-and-re-review loop is offered (not just a one-shot failure)
• Skill does NOT discard the produced UX spec on review failure

Variant B — /ux-review returns NOT ASSESSED:

• Fixture as above, except design/accessibility-requirements.md is absent and the other review dimensions find no gaps, so /ux-review returns NOT ASSESSED (accessibility: no committed tier)
• Expected: Phase 2 does not begin; AskUserQuestion names the unassessed dimension and its missing input (/ux-design accessibility), with options to produce that input and re-run the review, or to proceed consciously; if the user proceeds, the final report records the NOT ASSESSED override and Phase 4 still reports Accessibility: NOT ASSESSED — no committed tier (design/accessibility-requirements.md absent)

Assertions (variant B):

• Phase 2 does NOT begin on NOT ASSESSED without an explicit user decision — it blocks like NEEDS REVISION
• The prompt names the dimension /ux-review could not assess and the input that would make it checkable, not spec revisions
• The skill does not re-run /ux-review against the same missing input and treat the result as new
• An override is recorded in the final report with the NOT ASSESSED verdict and the unassessed dimension

---

Case 3: No Argument — Usage guidance shown

Fixture:

• Any project state

Input: /team-ui (no argument)

Expected behavior:

1. Skill detects no argument provided
2. Outputs usage message explaining the required argument (UI feature description)
3. Shows the invocation format /team-ui [UI feature description] [--review full|lean|solo] with examples (inventory screen, main menu, combat HUD)
4. Skill exits without spawning any subagents or reading any project files

Assertions:

• Skill does NOT spawn any subagents when no argument is given
• Usage message shows the full argument-hint: /team-ui [UI feature description] [--review full|lean|solo]
• At least one example of a valid invocation is shown
• No UX spec files or GDDs read before failing
• Verdict is NOT shown (pipeline never starts)

---

Case 4: Accessibility Parallel Review — Phase 4 runs three streams simultaneously

Fixture:

• Resolved config block: review_mode: full, team.size: small, automation: collaborative
• design/ux/inventory-screen.md exists (APPROVED)
• Visual design spec complete
• Implementation complete
• design/accessibility-requirements.md committed tier: Standard

Input: /team-ui inventory screen (resuming from Phase 3 complete)

Expected behavior:

1. Phase 4 begins after implementation is confirmed complete
2. Three Agent calls issued simultaneously: ux-designer, art-director, accessibility-specialist
3. Each stream operates independently:
   • ux-designer: verifies implementation matches wireframes, tests keyboard-only and gamepad-only navigation, checks accessibility features function
   • art-director: verifies visual consistency with art bible at minimum and maximum supported resolutions
   • accessibility-specialist: audits against the Standard accessibility tier in design/accessibility-requirements.md; any violation flagged as a blocker
4. Skill waits for all three results before proceeding to Phase 5
5. AskUserQuestion presents all three review results before Phase 5 begins

Assertions:

• All three Agent calls issued before any result is awaited (parallel, not sequential)
• Phase 5 does NOT begin until all three Phase 4 agents have returned
• Accessibility-specialist explicitly reads design/accessibility-requirements.md for the committed tier
• Accessibility violations flagged as BLOCKING (not merely advisory)
• AskUserQuestion shows all three review streams' results together before Phase 5 approval
• No Phase 4 agent's output is used as input for another Phase 4 agent

---

Case 5: Missing Interaction Pattern Library — Skill notes the gap rather than inventing patterns

Fixture:

• Resolved config block: automation: collaborative (any team.size)
• design/ux/interaction-patterns.md does NOT exist
• All other required files present

Input: /team-ui settings menu

Expected behavior:

1. Phase 1a — orchestrator attempts to read design/ux/interaction-patterns.md; file not found
2. Skill surfaces the gap: "interaction-patterns.md does not exist — no existing patterns to reuse"
3. AskUserQuestion presented with options:
   • (a) Run /ux-design patterns first to establish the pattern library, then continue
   • (b) Proceed without the pattern library — ui-programmer will treat all patterns created as new and add each to a new design/ux/interaction-patterns.md at completion
4. Skill does NOT invent or assume patterns from other sources
5. If user chooses (b): ui-programmer is explicitly instructed to treat all patterns created as new and to add each to a new design/ux/interaction-patterns.md at completion
6. Final report notes that interaction-patterns.md was created (or is still absent if user skipped)

Assertions:

• Skill does NOT silently ignore the missing pattern library
• Skill does NOT invent patterns by guessing from the feature name or GDD alone
• AskUserQuestion offers a "create pattern library first" option (referencing /ux-design patterns)
• If user proceeds without the library, ui-programmer is told to treat all patterns as new
• Final report documents pattern library status (created / absent / updated)
• Skill does NOT fail entirely — the gap is noted and user is given a choice

---

Protocol Compliance

• At the default team.size: individual, the run opens with an Active set (team.size: individual): ui-programmer + ux-designer line and a Not spawned this run: line naming art-director, accessibility-specialist and the engine UI specialist — before any agent is spawned
• In collaborative mode, AskUserQuestion used at each phase transition — user approves before pipeline advances
• UX Review Gate (Phase 1c) is blocking — Phase 2 cannot begin without APPROVED, or an explicit user override of a NEEDS REVISION or NOT ASSESSED verdict that the final report records
• When design/accessibility-requirements.md is absent, Phase 4 reports Accessibility: NOT ASSESSED — no committed tier (design/accessibility-requirements.md absent) and never reports the accessibility gate as passed
• When no engine is configured, the engine UI specialist is skipped and the run output records Engine validation: NOT ASSESSED — no engine configured
• When the accessibility gate or the engine validation was NOT ASSESSED, the verdict names each (COMPLETE — [accessibility | engine validation] NOT ASSESSED ([reason])) — never a plain COMPLETE
• All file writes delegated to sub-agents and sub-skills — orchestrator does not call Write or Edit directly
• Phase 4 agents launched in parallel per skill spec
• Error Recovery Protocol followed: surface → assess → offer options → partial report
• Partial report always produced even when agents are BLOCKED
• Verdict is one of COMPLETE / BLOCKED
• Next steps present at end: /ux-review, /code-review, /team-polish

---

Coverage Notes

• The HUD-specific path (/ux-design hud + hud-design.md template + visual budget check in Phase 5) is not separately tested here; it shares the same phase structure but uses different templates.
• The "Update in place" path for interaction-patterns.md (new pattern added during implementation) is exercised implicitly in Case 1 Phase 3 — a dedicated fixture with a known new pattern would strengthen coverage.
• Engine UI specialist unavailable (no engine configured) is asserted in Protocol Compliance but not given a dedicated fixture; a missing accessibility-requirements file is exercised at the Phase 1c gate by Case 2 variant B.
• The NEEDS REVISION and NOT ASSESSED overrides (Case 2, both variants) must be recorded in the final report; this is asserted but not further tested for downstream effects.
• A MAJOR REVISION NEEDED verdict from /ux-review is not given a case.